Ruger Mark IV Uppers

Status
Not open for further replies.
SGW Gunsmith

SGW Gunsmith

Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2018
Messages
796
Location
Northwestern Wisconsin
Don't know if anyone here is aware of Volquartsen having a "closeout" on Ruger Mark IV 5½ blued uppers for $25.00 each, plus shipping, but I just received two of those by UPS this morning:

j0d9bea.jpg

These are the serial numbered part, so an FFL license, 01, not C&R, is required for purchase. The two I received are in NIB condition and there is only a very slight drag mark in the bottom of the rear sight dovetail from where the rear sight was removed.

Well worth the cost involved and I'll see just how well these uppers exchange with the Mark IV Competition Target I have for an "inspection" and "modification" gun.
 
Will these fit a 22/45 frame?

ETA: Well, no response in this thread in ~5 hours, but I guess I'll find out soon enough. I just placed my order.
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure that they will fit the Mark IV 22/45 grip frames, or not. I tried both uppers on my Mark IV Competition Target stainless steel grip frame and both fit perfectly. That's quite a tribute to Rugers manufacturing process and capability to hold tight tolerances. I sorta like the look of a blued upper on a stainless steel grip frame.
 
SGW Gunsmith said:
I'm not sure that they will fit the Mark IV 22/45 grip frames, or not. I tried both uppers on my Mark IV Competition Target stainless steel grip frame and both fit perfectly. That's quite a tribute to Rugers manufacturing process and capability to hold tight tolerances. I sorta like the look of a blued upper on a stainless steel grip frame.
Click to expand...
I had a couple of hours to do a fair amount of googling on this earlier. I'd hardly call it a "consensus," but there were enough posts that I saw that claimed they would that I went ahead and ordered. Arrival in about 2 days. I'll report back once I've actually tried putting this upper on a 22/45 frame.
 
I have a Mark IV competition and the Hunter slab side upper I bought fit without problems utilizing the competition uppers bolt and everything. I don't see why these wouldn't be the same.
 
Certainly, everything that I could see looks the same. My thinking, based on an obviously limited knowledge of manufacturing & economics, is that it makes a lot of sense to make all of the uppers (for both 'regular' Mk IVs and Mk IV 22/45s) be the same. With that said, I should have it Thursday & will report back once I've tried fitting them together and will try to remember to do so once I've taken it out to the range.
 
Well, this is the "inter-web" and banking on any suggested "claims" therein, is taking quite a dangerous risk! I wouldn't rely on any hear-say speculation and would rather see if anyone posts actual experience with the fit up to a Mark IV 22/45 Zytel grip frame, preferably with pictures.
My expectations, knowing and working on Ruger firearm products since 1969, would hope that they thought things out to make the match proper, but seeing is believing.
 
SGW Gunsmith said:
Well, this is the "inter-web" and banking on any suggested "claims" therein, is taking quite a dangerous risk!....
Click to expand...
That wasn't lost on me, but I (obviously) decided that the potential rewards outweigh the risk. Best case scenario: Once I get some sights, I effectively have another Ruger 22/45. Worst case scenario: I'm out less than $100.

ETA: According to this page, a 22/45 Lite upper "Fits ALL Mark IV Frames / Both Standard and 22/45."
 
Last edited:
@Spats McGee: I wanted a threaded barrel non-22/45 MkIII but couldn’t find any, so I took a threaded 22/45 MkIII upper and put it on a non-22/45 MkIII lower. It didn’t fit at first, but luckily the gunsmith at work had no trouble modifying it to fit for me. So I’ll bet even if your upper doesn’t fit, a gunsmith can make it fit.

On a side note, soon after that the MkIV came out and was offered from the factory in the exact same configuration as the gun I went though all the trouble to custom build...
 
Had a few fellas send me an email who bought one of the uppers in the "closeout" arena. One had VC thread the muzzle end right away and another guy had them install sights on his. All at additional cost, of course.
One thing I can vouch for is that the two uppers I received fit perfectly onto my Ruger Mark IV Competition Target grip frame:

IlrRT3H.jpg

It would make for good planning if Ruger designed the Mark IV 22/45 Zytel grip frames so those would accept all the other uppers involved. Will be a good thing if the one you ordered fits what you have.
 
Well, it's at the FFL now. Unfortunately, the FFL is a little confused and (understandably) reluctant to transfer it to me until he's talked to his lawyers (whom I probably know). But it's his FFL on the line if he does things wrong, so I'm not being grouchy about it. I'll get it in the next couple of days, I'm sure.
 
Theohazard said:
@Spats McGee: I wanted a threaded barrel non-22/45 MkIII but couldn’t find any, so I took a threaded 22/45 MkIII upper and put it on a non-22/45 MkIII lower. It didn’t fit at first, but luckily the gunsmith at work had no trouble modifying it to fit for me. So I’ll bet even if your upper doesn’t fit, a gunsmith can make it fit.

On a side note, soon after that the MkIV came out and was offered from the factory in the exact same configuration as the gun I went though all the trouble to custom build...
Click to expand...

I understand what you're writing about. On the Ruger Mark III 22/45 uppers, Ruger used pretty much of a Neanderthal method of fitting the uppers to the Mark III 22/45 grip frames. They tightened up the fit by pounding the snot out of the front end of the receiver receptacle for the grip frame tab until it fit:

A88rFrQ.jpg

So, when trying to install that smashed receiver onto a different 22/45 grip frame, some were lucky and others needed adjustment to fit well. It does take a bit of moto-tool work on a "non-fitting" receiver, but persistence does pay off.
 
Spats McGee said:
Well, it's at the FFL now. Unfortunately, the FFL is a little confused and (understandably) reluctant to transfer it to me until he's talked to his lawyers (whom I probably know). But it's his FFL on the line if he does things wrong, so I'm not being grouchy about it. I'll get it in the next couple of days, I'm sure.
Click to expand...

Interesting. The receiver on these uppers hold the serial number so the transfer would be the same as any other handgun. Fill out the 4473 form and call the NICS for a background check, which I'm sure you'll pass easily. Wonder if he's confused concerning the description section on the form? A call to the BATF-E would probably be more informative.
I listed the two uppers I received as "handgun", but, not being a complete assembly, he may want to use "other".
 
SGW Gunsmith said:
The receiver on these uppers hold the serial number so the transfer would be the same as any other handgun.
...
I listed the two uppers I received as "handgun".
Click to expand...
On the 4473 it’s an “other firearm” on question 16 and then a “receiver” in box 27. You’re not supposed to transfer it as a “handgun” on 16 and then a “pistol” in 27 since it doesn’t meet the federal definition of a pistol:

https://www.atf.gov/firearms/firear...on-firearms-gun-control-act-definition-pistol

But you’re right that federally (and in many states) the transfer process is the same either way.
 
Last edited:
Spats McGee said:
Well, it's at the FFL now. Unfortunately, the FFL is a little confused and (understandably) reluctant to transfer it to me until he's talked to his lawyers (whom I probably know). But it's his FFL on the line if he does things wrong, so I'm not being grouchy about it. I'll get it in the next couple of days, I'm sure.
Click to expand...
What’s his hang-up? He should transfer it to you like any other receiver. I’m sure he’s transferred AR lowers before, it’s no different. (At least for the federal paperwork and background check requirements; it’s possible your state laws have extra state paperwork requirements that differentiate between the two, but I doubt it.)
 
Last edited:
I'm sure he's done AR lowers, but this may be the first serialized upper he's ever seen. He's just being cautious. If it were my FFL, I'd be cautious when in doubt. With that said, I have to admit that I thought it would go as a pistol, and stand corrected, now that I've actually looked at the 4473.
 
Theohazard said:
On the 4473 it’s an “other firearm” on question 16 and then a “receiver” in box 27. You’re not supposed to transfer it as a “handgun” on 16 and then a “pistol” in 27 since it doesn’t meet the federal definition of a pistol:

https://www.atf.gov/firearms/firear...on-firearms-gun-control-act-definition-pistol

But you’re right that federally (and in many states) the transfer process is the same either way.
Click to expand...

Well, it sure doesn't meet the requirements to be a rifle, unless one were to go with making it an SBR ( short barrel rifle ), and then that would cost a bunch more for the tax stamp.
Anyway "Spats", be sure to let us know how this works out, and I hope it does as you expect.
 
SGW Gunsmith said:
Well, it sure doesn't meet the requirements to be a rifle, unless one were to go with making it an SBR ( short barrel rifle )
Click to expand...
You’re right that it doesn’t meet the requirements to be a rifle (and even if one were making it into an SBR it still wouldn’t meet the requirements to be transferred as an SBR). It’s not a rifle or a pistol, it’s a receiver.
 
Wouldn't these uppers be drosed as a pistol since they are takeoffs from a fully functional handgun? These aren't like a stripped AR lower that hasn't been built into a firearm. Just wondering.
 
I have not function tested the Mk IV (standard) upper on my Mk IV 22/45 frame, but it DOES fit. Like a glove!

And the FFL talked to his lawyers & they said it is a pistol. So that’s how it got transferred.
 
railroader said:
Wouldn't these uppers be drosed as a pistol since they are takeoffs from a fully functional handgun? These aren't like a stripped AR lower that hasn't been built into a firearm. Just wondering.
Click to expand...
”DROS” is a California term, so if you’re referring to California law I have no idea. But if you’re referring to federal law (which every dealer in the US has to follow and the 4473 is a federal document), the dealer is required to transfer the firearm as it actually is configured.

The 4473 is a transfer document, not a registration document. The dealer has to categorize the firearm on the 4473 as it is currently configured at the time of transfer, not as it was previously configured or as it’s going to be configured in the future. So if a firearm doesn’t currently meet the definition of a pistol at the time of transfer, then the dealer can’t list it as a pistol on the 4473. It doesn’t matter if the firearm used to be a pistol or can only physically be made into a pistol, if it’s not currently a pistol then he can’t list “pistol” on the form.

Earlier in this thread I linked to the federal law definition of “pistol”. A MkIV upper doesn’t meet that definition. However, it does meet the federal definition of “receiver”:

https://www.atf.gov/firearms/firear...rearms-ammunition-gun-control-act-definitions
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

SGW Gunsmith
  • Locked
Ruger Mark IV Versatility
Replies
6
Views
624
AzShooter1
AzShooter1
SGW Gunsmith
  • Locked
Another Ruger Mark IV Upper
Replies
2
Views
322
Skylerbone
Skylerbone
Driftwood Johnson
Ruger Mark IV
2
Replies
32
Views
2K
cougar1717
cougar1717
AzShooter1
  • Locked
Preparing My Back-up Mark IV
Replies
1
Views
298
sparkyv
sparkyv
A
  • Locked
Ruger Mark IV modifications
Replies
4
Views
3K
horsemen61
H
Back
Top